Is it happening? The planet is obviously getting warmer on average by all the recent measurements I've seen. At this point I'd say claiming that it's not happening is simply denying reality.

Is it our fault? Quite possibly, but not definitely. The amount of greenhouse gases released by industry and society has certainly contributed to it, but to say that it's the root cause is perhaps jumping to conclusions. The planet has a dynamic environment; we've had ice-ages, and on a geological scale we've had one rather recently. It may simply be that we're still warming up from that. I haven't seen much data from before the 1850's on the subject, and I somewhat doubt such data exist. (Please, if you know where to find such data, prove me wrong.) However, with the greenhouse gases we release, I find it hard to swallow that we're not at least a factor in the trend.

Is it happening? The planet is obviously getting warmer on average by all the recent measurements I've seen. At this point I'd say claiming that it's not happening is simply denying reality.

Agreed

Quote:

Is it our fault? Quite possibly, but not definitely.

This is always one of the parts of the debate I just never understood as a sticking point bettween sides. In the end, it doesn't matter if it's our fault. Because it is happening we need to do something about it, since global climate change is not going to be a good thing for anyone (just ask those recently hit by hurricane or tsunami). Sure, if we caused it, we would have some environmentally oriented moral obligation to fix it, but we have a bigger one anyway: survival of the species.

I'm not sure it's so clear-cut as that. If we're not the cause, then perhaps its best that we allow nature to take its course?

I personally think this line of thinking is flawed (after all, vaccines and antibiotics are denying nature's course), but it's there.

A much more interesting argument against action to slow global warming, however, is whether or not we want to risk the very real possibility that we'll screw something up. Humanity doesn't have the best track record on keeping environments stable, though we are getting better at it. Regardless, if we step in and screw up, the results could very well be worse than if we didn't do anything at all.

(I personally agree with you, Bait, but if one enters into a debate with everyone agreeing, it becomes rather redundant rather quickly.)

A much more interesting argument against action to slow global warming, however, is whether or not we want to risk the very real possibility that we'll screw something up. Humanity doesn't have the best track record on keeping environments stable, though we are getting better at it. Regardless, if we step in and screw up, the results could very well be worse than if we didn't do anything at all.

If by "screw something up" you mean, "go too far the other way and plunge Earth into another Ice Age," no problem. We already know how to make the Earth get hotter.

If instead you mean, "totally boop up Earth's ecology," well, Earth's ecology is already pretty booped up, and letting global warming run its course is only going to boop it up more.

Here's my take on global warming:

We know that the Earth is getting warmer. There is no credible dispute about this.

We know that when levels of so-called greenhouse gases are increased within a closed system - which Earth is, for most practical purposes - the temperature of that system tends to rise, all else being equal. There is no credible dispute about this, either.

We know that since at least the Industrial Revolution, humanity has been pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. There is no credible dispute about this, either.

The dispute, as it stands now, is about "how bad will the warming be?"

On one side: "The effects of the warming will be minimal, so we really don't have to do anything different. We'll just keep raking in the money from fossil fuels and pumping the results into the atmosphere like we have been, and things will continue more or less as they have been before."

On the other: "The effects of the warming will be catastrophic, altering the weather patterns and ocean currents humanity has relied on for millennia, raising the sea levels, and causing famine, drought, flooding, mass migrations of people from afflicted areas, wars over dwindling resources in area once rich with them... but there's a chance we can fix it, make it not as bad. Sure, it'll cost a lot of money, but the end result will be a more prosperous world, with a Third World no longer plagued by famines, disease, and desperation, no longer a fertile breeding ground for every brutal, bigoted petty tyrant and his brother."

So, there are five possible outcomes*, based on three variables: what we think will happen because of global warming, what we do about it, and what does happen because of global warming.

Outcome 1: We assume that global warming will have little to no effect, do nothing, and are right. The Third World remains mired in poverty, bigotry, famine, disease, and tyranny.

Outcome 2: We assume that global warming will have little to no effect, do nothing, and are wrong. Cue a massive increase in suffering around the world. First World countries use their wealth and technical skill to adapt and survive, while Third World countries become even closer to Hell on Earth than they were before, as refugees fleeing the effects of climate change come into conflict with the lucky ones who still have access to resources needed to survive. Desperate warfare erupts as millions battle to survive. The only plus side, if it can be called that, is that once the smoke clears, there'll be a whole lot fewer mouths to feed.

Outcome 3: We assume that global warming will have drastic to catastrophic effects, work to mitigate the effects as much as we can and prepare the world for the effects that might still happen, and are wrong. The Third World is now a much better educated place, with the food and technology to compete economically with First World nations. The overall quality of human life is increased, a lot.

Outcome 4: We assume that global warming will have drastic to catastrophic effects, do nothing (we were all stoned or something), and are right. Similar results as to Outcome 2.

Outcome 5: We assume that global warming will have drastic to catastrophic effects, work to mitigate the effects as much as we can and prepare the world for the effects that might still happen, and are right. Similar results as to Outcome 3.

So, in the end, it comes down to whether you favor letting millions of people continue to live in misery and suffering for the sake of making wads of cash (with the risk of losing all that cash later), or foregoing those wads of cash in order to improve to quality of human life.

*I have this nagging feeling that there's a sixth possible outcome, but I can't pin it down right now. Sleep deprivation for teh lose.

A much more interesting argument against action to slow global warming, however, is whether or not we want to risk the very real possibility that we'll screw something up.

That is an argument I've heard made. Not one I'm fond of. Refusing to deal with a known danger because in doing so we might create an unknown and worse danger is foolish. In my view it's sort of like saying "well, I could put out that fire in the kitchen, but I the fuel in the extinguisher may be carcenogenic and cancer is worse than a burned down house'.

Lord Iames Osari wrote:

*I have this nagging feeling that there's a sixth possible outcome, but I can't pin it down right now. Sleep deprivation for teh lose.

Yeah, there is, it's:

Outcome 6: We assume that global warming will have drastic and catastrophic effects and are right. We work to mitigate those effects as best we can but the building onset and slow nature of our response ultimatley makes the effort fruitless. We cut down on carbon emissions and billions die anyway because we only half tried.

And this is a point where I would say logic against doing anything fails and I can no longer play devil's advocate. Yeah, in the end it seems pretty straightforward to me. Unfortunately, it's not so with the people who have the power to enact the measures needed to stabilize global temperature worldwide on a large scale. Hence, the problem still isn't being addressed adequately.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum